Plantagenet Somerset Fry’s dehnition of a castle has long resonated with me: “the castle was a properly fortified militar)’ residence, which is as exact a definition as can be given.”'’ R. Allen Brown puts forth the following definition: “Castles were not just fortresses but also residences, albeit the residences of the great. It is this unique combination of the militar)’ and the residential functions which makes a castle, and makes it differ from other types of fortifications of other periods, earlier or later.”*'* Brown also emphasizes that the residential role of the castle had at least as much importance as its military role.
Certainly, Fry’s and Brown’s definitions complement each other; even the most ruinous of castles still retain evidence of these dual —essentially symbiotic —purposes. Eroded mottes continue to convey their importance as elevated platforms from which watchmen had distant views of the surrounding countryside and upon which timber tow'ers or shell keeps occupied positions of relative safet}'. While the vast majority of timber towers do not survive, the flattened summits or keep fragments provide evidence of habitation. Over time, more complex stone fortresses either engulfed their earthen predecessors, motte and ringw'ork castles, or replaced them completely. For example, at Rhuddlan, the massive Norman motte, Twthill, which had previously superseded the Saxon burh, became obsolete when Edward I began to build the diamond-shaped concentric fortress several hundred feet to the north. Despite their eventual obsolescence, the earthen mounds and ringworks persist throughout the British countryside. Passersby not accustomed to recognizing the eroding mounds as castles may ignore them in their pursuit of stone fortresses, whose masonr’ towers and battle-mented curtain walls, they believe, surely prove the power and grandiose lifesh'les of their inhabitants. Yet, mottes and ringworks, and accompan'ing bailer’s, played the same basic roles for their builders that more formidable masonr)' strongholds also performed.
The diversit}’ of castle design is striking. Not onh' did castles of the same type differ from each other, no two contemporary castles followed the same standard design. True, elements of every castle were standard; for example, all castles contained a living chamber and some sort of defense. Yet, their builders applied the same basic technology and building materials to create unique structures. As Robert Higham points out, “we should not view timber castles as a separate ’ty'pe’ of castle, but rather as a ’ariation on a theme. Castle designers aimed to meet similar requirements of defense and residence with whatever building technology and materials were available at their disposal. 1’iniber might be chosen because no suitable stone was a’ail-ablc, or beeause the builder eould not afford to buy stone, or because speed of erection was essential, or because only short-term use for the site was envisaged.”’’
Clearly, their castles meant different things to different builders. 'Phey served much more than a basic “protect thy lord and his household” function. The extent of fortification, the layout of the internal structures, the ehoice of location, and the grandiosity of ornamentation all reflected the needs, expectations, and idiosyncrasies of the men who built and lived in them. Castles w'ere much more than defensive structures built to protect the lord and residents. They were much more than grand homes for the monarch or regional ruler. Indeed, they were much more than mereh’ functional facilities; otlienvise, castles could have easily been built to a standard plan. While tbc structure ifsclf was built to contain all tbe buildings the lord considered essential to tbe operation of his lordship, bow the buildings were laid out —tbe image they presented to others—was as carefully, sometimes obsessively, contemplated as their ability to provide life’s daily militaiy and domestic rcc|uircmeuts.
As socieh’ in tbe Middle Ages shifted and developed, so did castlebuilding. Advances in warfare technology also led to changes in castle design, the complexih' of fortifications, and the role played by tbe castle in medieval society, lire idtimate form a castle took was also dictated by the goals and pcrsonalifi' of its builder. Many were more heavily defended, essentially more military', while others were primarily residential but also bad defensive structures. Tower bouses dominated tbe borders between Scotland and England and were also widespread in Ireland. Their thick, battle-meuted walls dntifnlly, though not necessarily comfortably, provided residents with their mo. st basic needs; shelter and a sense of. safety. They also .symbolically displayed their owner’s status, for, despite their simplicity and compact size, not everyone coidd afford to build a tower bouse, Eor those that could, the tower house filled a gap in the political order of the region. They were properly, albeit tightly, fortified residences that serx'cd an occasional military role,
Britain’s medieval castles seiv-ed individual overlords, who resided inside perhaps only part of tbe year but who retained control over the surrounding country. side, reaping tlie economic benefits of posses. sing tbe lordship and manorial estates. Onlv occasionalh' in times of w'ar were these fortified private residences used as refuges for the local population. Not only did the construction of castles reiterate that the Normans now' controlled the kingdom but their permanent presence in the landscape also emphasized the increasing responsibility placed on the individual leader as the commander of a region, whose separate status from the general populace and prestigious political position as the monarch’s representative warranted a dwelling worthy of that status, one that provided distinct living arrangements as well as defen. sive might—tbe castle.
World History
